- 7 -
the Church of Scientology is in violation of the First Amendment.
Petitioners have made a proffer of evidence tending to conform to
their allegations.3
In her dissenting opinion in Hernandez v. Commissioner,
supra at 705, Justice O’Connor stated:
It must be emphasized that the IRS’ position here is
not based upon the contention that a portion of the
knowledge received from auditing or training is of a
secular, commercial, nonreligious value. Thus, the denial
of a deduction in these cases bears no resemblance to the
denial of a deduction for a religious-school tuition up to
the market value of the secularly useful education received.
See Oppewal v. Commissioner, 468 F.2d 1000 (1st Cir. 1972);
Winters v. Commissioner, 468 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1972); DeJong
v. Commissioner, 309 F.2d 373 (9th Cir. 1962). * * *
There is nothing in the record to show that petitioners’
situation is analogous to that of the members of the Church of
Scientology. The Church of Scientology and the schools involved
in this case are not identical in their organization, structure,
or purpose. Auditing, as defined in Hernandez v. Commissioner,
supra, is not the same as a general education, which may include
some percentage for religious education. Thus we perceive no
denominational preference to require any inquiry into a purported
violation of the Establishment Clause. As stated earlier,
3 Petitioners offered into evidence 16 documents with
respect to their contentions. Respondent objected to these
documents on various grounds, and we took the objections under
advisement. We have determined that the documents are not
admissible because they are irrelevant to this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011